Posts

The following thoughts came from a small discussion on facebook with a friend of mine.

First of all, in seeking to understand any other we need to understand their words, as they define them. We tell people that if they want to understand, properly, the Bible, that they have to understand the historical and cultural context of the authors, and understand what they meant, in the larger historical, cultural and textual context, by the words they used, rather than imposing our definitions on their terms. Furthermore, to truly understand the Bible, it is better to read it in the original language than to read a translation, because every translation is an interpretation The same thing is true in reading the ancient and medieval philosophers. Whenever we read a translation we read an interpretation, and, frequently we impose our definitions on their words.

Secondly, in order to truly be able to critique any body (whether it be an author or a friend we are talking with) we firs…

I'm currently working through the Gifford Lectures of James Barr, who is looking at the notion of Natural Theology and asking the question of whether or not the Bible approves of Natural Theology. Prior to reading Barr's Gifford Lectures, I read the Gifford Lectures of Karl Barth. I am happy to say that the conclusions that I came to as I read through Karl Barth are the same conclusions that James Barr comes to in his book.

At the beginning of his career as an Old Testament Scholar he was sympathetic with the Barthian rejection of Natural Theology, however, in examining the arguments advanced by Barth and Barthian theologians he came to the conclusion that "His exegesis, however we may evaluate it in general, was thus selectively and tendentiously applied, magnifying the elements which fitted with the needs of his theology, and minimizing those which his theology opposed. (Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, p. 136)". A couple of pages earlier he no…